Creationism in schools?

Question

Why do people assume that if Creationism is taught in schools, the teachers will commence shoving religion down the students' throats? While I agree that Creationism implies a God, that does not mean that you are telling kids to go get religious, which is what separation of church and state is intended to prevent. You are offering an alternate theory to the theory of Evolution. People who claim that everyone should make informed decisions, why can't you present both theories? As I said, you aren't telling them that they must go get religion, and they can decide for themselves if they think it's true and who the creator is. Agree or disagree?

I think if you don't see any evidence, it's because you don't care to.

Very true, Nandina. You shouldn't say one religion's version of it...perhaps just point out that people believe that things are too complex to evolve, along with evidence to support this, without mentioning one particular story.

Tylertxan, how exactly can you "test" evolution? If, as you say, we observe, hypothesize, confirm, can you not observe how complex even a single cell is and hypothesize that it didn't come from nothingness? As for confirmation, you can't really "confirm" evolution or creation. Has anyone ever seen examples of living things changing species?

You don't have to be religious to believe in a deity - see deists, such as Thomas Jefferson.

hsmomandlovinit, I agree. It is all I best guess. I do believe in Creationism because I happen to think it's more of a best guess, but it is all a best guess. We'll find out when we die I suppose.

Well put, Doctor.

My main point here was, which we seem to have gotten away from, if the teachers are not telling you to believe Creationism, then why can you not teach it.

Answer 1

Most Christians I know don't want biblical creationism taught in science classes. What we want is for molecules-to-man evolution to be taught with all its warts (they are not even allowed to present evidence that would put evolution in a poor light). And we want intelligent design to at least to be presented. Unlike leprechauns and unicorns, etc., a significant percentage of the population believes in ID.

So many people these days are confusing biblical creationism with intelligent design. "Intelligent Design is the study of patterns in nature that are best explained as the result of intelligence" (Dr. William Dembski). That's it; it says nothing of who the creator is and how he/she/it/they did it. Intelligent Design encompasses every "creation" story, even aliens seeding life on this planet, or the creator(s) using evolution (theistic evolution).

What about teaching it in school? I'm sorry, but I have to agree with George Bush: "Both sides ought to be properly taught . . . so people can understand what the debate is about . . . Part of education is to expose people to different schools of thought . . . You're asking me whether or not people ought to be exposed to different ideas, the answer is yes.”

Good science teaching should include controversies. But, whenever you mention this kind of stuff, evolutionists jump from their trees and start behaving as if someone had stolen their bananas. Apparently, academic freedom is for other subjects.

As Cal Thomas has said, “Why are believers in one model—evolution—seeking to impose their faith on those who hold that there is scientific evidence which supports the other model? It’s because they fear they will lose their influence and academic power base after a free and open debate. They are like political dictators who oppose democracy, fearing it will rob them of power.”

Intelligent Design is not religion, but never mind the fact that the phrase “separation of church and state” is not even found in the Constitution (Thomas Jefferson used the term in a private letter to reassure the Baptists that the government would not interfere in the free exercise of their religious beliefs [Jefferson, 1802]).

And for those who put so much faith in peer-review, check this out: http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=2640&program=CSC%20-%20Scientific%20Research%20and%20Scholarship%20-%20Science

Answer 2

That's the thing, it's not an alternative theory. If there was an actual theory of Creation, and it was actually backed by evidence and couldn't be falsified, it would be in Science text books. Science will present all theories available for a certain subject if it's possible that either one could be true. But with Creationism and Evolution, only Evolution has stood up the rigours discourse of Science, all predictions it has made have all fit perfectly. Creationism isn't science, it's a story from a book, it has nothing to do with evidence. If we put things in holy books as theories, then we would have to learn about the science of Mohamed flying on a winged horse. But we don't, because neither a flying holy horse or Creationism have any evidence =p

Answer 3

What else can you say publicly about creationism without citing other religious teachings? It seems to me that teaching creationism in a way that does not seem religiously forceful would amount to one sentence alone-

"Some people believe a God created the Earth and all within it."

You cannot prove it or expound on it without teaching religion, which isn't appropriate in the public school setting. Is it necessary to create such an uproar about one usable sentence, and the fact that you cannot substantiate the claim without crossing the line really makes it a useless education tool in the public setting.

Evolution has been substantiated beyond a mere theory, creationism has not. Evolution is not something that is merely speculated upon, there is an infinite amount of information that backs this up, factual information that is important to convey to all individuals schooled or not. Whether or not you believe it explains how life was created, it certainly explains how life exists right now. And as it is important to cite alternate theories, they have to be explainable in the same context. Maybe if ideas of creationism were conveyed in history or western civilization classes (like the flat earth theory is) there wouldn't be such opposition to it being taught as a belief that some share. It is not such a good comparison in a scientific setting - sorry.

Answer 4

Disagree. Creationism is in no way a scientific theory. It's completely composed of lies. Also, implying a deity of any kind is not allowed in public school curriculum. The school cannot advocate any form of religious belief.

Besides all that, all the "evidence" for creationism was falsified and misinterpreted with the Judeo-Christian creation story in mind and has nothing to do with the many other creations tories in existence. It would be shoving a specific religious story down their throat.

Edit: Response to Doctor:

Which arguments against creationism are valid against evolution? Really, I can't think of any.

Evolutionary theory would be falsified by a rabbit in the Precambrian, or any similar animal in the wrong layer of rock before their ancestors had evolved.

Differences in evolutionary theory are just that, subtle. Not huge things. Punctuated equilibrium simply says that there are spurts of activity as environments change but species can be constant for a long time. Compare that to YHWH speaking the universe into existence versus the Earth being made from the carcass of a bull.

Creation doesn't just lack evidence, all the evidence we have disputes it. Fossils show a line of descent with modification. Comparative genetics shows family trees that line up with the fossil line, as does comparative morphology.

The prediction that evolution makes is about the past, not the future. It predicts a nested hierarchy of life, which we see.

Answer 5

I have no problem if creationism is taught in philosophy or religion classes. The problem with teaching it in science classes is that schools seek to teach the scientific method, observe, hypothesize, observe, confirm--creationism invokes basically magic. Tenets of the theory of evolution can be checked and confirmed by independent unbiased observers anywhere in the world. Creationism by definition says that observation and confirmation are meaningless. Science class is about teaching science--it is not a debate class or a philosophy class. Creationism does not belong in any science class.

Answer 6

I think the issue is that creationism isn't a scientific theory, so it shouldn't be taught in science class. Do you have religion classes? Teach it there, where it belongs.

Answer 7

I don't think "creationism" should be taught in a science classroom. Perhaps intelligent design.

The story of creation in Genesis tells that God created the world, but not how He did it. There is no way to take religion out of that, and there is no science in it.

I believe in the separation of church and state. I also believe in the Bible.

Answer 8

Both should be taught. What is lost? People say creation is a myth yet evolution is based mainly on coincidental events, the most important being the distance of the earth to the sun. A little closer and it would be too hot for life and a little farther you know...

Answer 9

Nothing remotely resembling creationism is taught in schools. We do not mention the G word (God), yet others are free to express their thoughts. I do not say a word to any of my students, and if anyone asks me, I am careful to say that it is what I believe, but that others believe differently.

As it is now, we are told not to teach anything unless it's on the CRCT (standardized test). Because of Bush, no one above 3rd grade even gets recess.

THE TEST! THE TEST!

I'm disgusted. Kids aren't allowed to be kids. It's all about the test!

Answer 10

Creationism is not an alternate theory to evolution. There is nothing scientific abot creationism. There is not data to back any of it up. Therefore, it is not science and should not be taught as science. To try to teach it in another class would be a waste of time.


You say there is evidence? Please, let us know the SCIENTIFIC evidence that backs creationism. As it is, it can truly be said that there is as much evidence to back up creationism as there is that aliens seeded the planet with humans.



I hate when people pretend to understand science. Later on mcginnis.joshua says he has proof of creationism and gives this link.
http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Evolution%20Hoax/Evolution/03.htm

These are some pretty idiotic ramblings pretending to be science. This site claims it is a scientific fact that the rocks of the earth were formed in 3 minutes. I have had a few years of geology and I have never heard this as a scientific fact. I have never heard of a geologist who would make this sort of claim. In fact, any person claiming to be a geologist that makes this claim would be considered a hack.

This just goes to show how fundamentalism demands stupidity of its members.